1999 (10) TMI 756 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Sec. 25FFA read with Sec. 61AA of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Applicability of Section 25FFA to the company with less than 50 workmen.
3. Question of limitation in filing the complaint.
4. Requirement of government sanction for launching prosecution under Section 25FFA.
5. Contention regarding the closure of the company by the accused.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioners were convicted under Sec. 25FFA read with Sec. 61AA of the Industrial Disputes Act. The trial court sentenced them to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to just the fine. The revision was filed against this judgment.

2. The revision petitioners argued that their company, employing less than 50 workmen, should not fall under Section 25FFA. Both lower courts rejected this contention based on evidence that more than 50 workmen were employed. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the company indeed comes under the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The main contention was the question of limitation in filing the complaint. The revision petitioners argued that the complaint was time-barred as it should have been filed within one year from the date of the offense. The prosecution claimed the offense was a continuing one, and hence, not time-barred. The High Court agreed with the revision petitioners, emphasizing the importance of the limitation period.

4. The requirement of government sanction for launching prosecution under Section 25FFA was debated. The prosecution contended that no sanction was needed due to the nature of the offense. The High Court supported this argument, citing a Bombay High Court decision and clarifying that no previous sanction or consent of the government was necessary for prosecution under Section 25FFA.

5. The accused argued that they did not close the company, as it was taken over by another entity. They contended that they had no intention to close the unit and therefore should not be convicted under Section 25FFA. The High Court agreed, stating that since the company was taken over by another entity, the accused cannot be held liable for the violation. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and any fine paid was to be refunded to the revision petitioners.